list_common_argumentsClaims that recur in conversation: the claim, a one-line answer, the texts, and the article URL or Article coming. Filter with group and query, and page with cursor. [no key]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arguments | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "arguments": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "nextCursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "arguments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the item field list and the '[no key]' note, but with an output schema present the field list is largely redundant and no additional behavioral context (result ordering, page size behavior) is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a bracket tag is compact, but the leading sentence spends its budget describing return fields rather than front-loading the purpose, and the phrasing is garbled ('Article coming'). Reasonably sized but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present the return fields need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits the limit parameter, gives no sibling differentiation, and does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage, so it is only minimally complete for a four-parameter list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It correctly maps group and query as filters and cursor as pagination, but the limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters unexplained by either schema or description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description conveys that this lists recurring claims and enumerates the returned item fields (claim, one-line answer, texts, article URL/Article), but it never states a clean verb+resource and does not differentiate itself from the singular sibling get_common_argument or from find_articles_for_claim. The phrase 'the article URL or Article coming' is muddled and weakens clarity. Purpose is inferable but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only guidance is 'Filter with group and query, and page with cursor,' which explains how to drive the parameters, not when to select this tool over get_common_argument or find_articles_for_claim. No when-to-use context or exclusions are offered, leaving tool selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.